|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:33 am
Mothette divineseraph Mothette divineseraph The two are split up, often. Spirit is what you are referring to as the Vitalizing Principle. It is what gives motion to all things, but causes growth of biological life in ways beyond the mundane. It powers Ki/Chi, for example. The Soul is consciousness, or Self. As you said, it is hard to determine if primitive life has this, but it is more than possible that it has a muted form of it. It's not necessarily reflective or contemplative, but "knowing". I would consider the terms soul and spirit interchangeable. I think having a consciousness is likely separated from having a soul, like having emotions, it can contribute to a soul's complexity but is not a necessity for the soul to exist. Unless all life forms have consciousness, which would make it a criteria for life and possibly synonymous with having a soul. But, I doubt that bacteria have nuclei complex enough for a consciousness. There is a difference. Both are nonphysical, but spirit is non-personal and non-specific. It is simply higher energy. The Soul is the Self. It IS personal AND specific. It is like condensed spirit in a point. The problem here is that you are calling the soul the vitalizing force. You're using a misnomer, as that term is taken by Spirit. That is your belief, not mine. As with any abstract noun exact definition is up to the individual within a boundary set by society. All words are abstractions. The word you are using means something other than what you are using it for. It is taken by the word spirit. You are not necessarily incorrect, just using the wrong word for it. If you want to call the soul the spirit and the spirit the soul, whatever. It will just be more confusing to anyone who knows such theology. It's like calling a dog a cat and a cat a dog- You do have both words and understand both concepts, you're just switching them around.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:13 am
Shad Woest What is the difference between soul and spirit? Aren't they the same? In my case I don't believe in an individual spirit, that that which most consider spirit is shared across the board and doesn't belong to one individual. If a soul is defined by a person's relationship to their environment and those in it, the spirit IS that relationship. This isn't just the relationship between mind and body, no, but everything else that exists as well. After all most people that experience a 'spiritual' moment will comment on a feeling of interconnectedness. That feeling is initiated by what I believe to be the human realizing that their spirit is inherently connected to everything else and not necessarily their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:04 pm
Aako, I would say that I am living proof.
And with reincarnation, how do we not remember past lives, names, and all of that?
I think that a soul is just something made up by the priests, shammans, etc. of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:34 pm
Shad Woest Aako, I would say that I am living proof. And with reincarnation, how do we not remember past lives, names, and all of that? I think that a soul is just something made up by the priests, shammans, etc. of religion.
And I believe you do remember past lives, you just cannot call them up like you can in your present life. You must have a deep connection with your soul to be able to remember these. It is something more than meditating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:34 pm
Pardon me for refering to you with a shortened part of your username. -.-
It would be nice if we were reborn, however there is no proof for it, nor against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:12 pm
Shad Woest Pardon me for refering to you with a shortened part of your username. -.- It would be nice if we were reborn, however there is no proof for it, nor against it. Which is why a lot of people who have such beliefs rely on conviction from the faith they have in their specific belief system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:32 pm
divineseraph All words are abstractions. The word you are using means something other than what you are using it for. It is taken by the word spirit. You are not necessarily incorrect, just using the wrong word for it. If you want to call the soul the spirit and the spirit the soul, whatever. It will just be more confusing to anyone who knows such theology. It's like calling a dog a cat and a cat a dog- You do have both words and understand both concepts, you're just switching them around. No, you misunderstood me. Abstract noun vs concrete noun - concrete, like a dog or cat, you can see and touch, whatever. Abstract you can't. So it's not the same as calling a dog a cat, as just by being abstract the definition is looser. If you'd like a better example of an abstract noun take a look at how many ways the word love can be interpreted - it is similar, but not quite the same to any two people. I'd also like to know where you get your theology from, according to every English dictionary I've consulted the terms are synonymous, with most of their definitions the same, word for word. Dictionaries glean their definitions from the word's most common usages in society. If only your way of separating and defining the two is appropriate, why is this so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:50 pm
Mothette divineseraph All words are abstractions. The word you are using means something other than what you are using it for. It is taken by the word spirit. You are not necessarily incorrect, just using the wrong word for it. If you want to call the soul the spirit and the spirit the soul, whatever. It will just be more confusing to anyone who knows such theology. It's like calling a dog a cat and a cat a dog- You do have both words and understand both concepts, you're just switching them around. No, you misunderstood me. Abstract noun vs concrete noun - concrete, like a dog or cat, you can see and touch, whatever. Abstract you can't. So it's not the same as calling a dog a cat, as just by being abstract the definition is looser. If you'd like a better example of an abstract noun take a look at how many ways the word love can be interpreted - it is similar, but not quite the same to any two people. I'd also like to know where you get your theology from, according to every English dictionary I've consulted the terms are synonymous, with most of their definitions the same, word for word. Dictionaries glean their definitions from the word's most common usages in society. If only your way of separating and defining the two is appropriate, why is this so? Yet words are abstractions- A dog is not the letters D-O-G, nor does it resemble a dog. Only because we, in our minds and abstractions, accept the word as the meaning for the animal does it mean the animal. Therefore the word for a specific or concrete noun is still abstract. I'm primarily going from alchemical theory and ancient understanding mostly relating to the jews, greeks and egyptians. The words are commonly used that way, true, but originally they meant two different, but moderately similar things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:26 pm
Shad Woest Pardon me for refering to you with a shortened part of your username. -.- It would be nice if we were reborn, however there is no proof for it, nor against it.
And no, there is no proof of anything. Is there proof of a soul? No. Is there proof of heaven? Hell? Purgatory? No. They are beliefs. You can not base life on fact alone. What would there be to live for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:33 pm
divineseraph Yet words are abstractions- A dog is not the letters D-O-G, nor does it resemble a dog. Only because we, in our minds and abstractions, accept the word as the meaning for the animal does it mean the animal. Therefore the word for a specific or concrete noun is still abstract. Quote: Nouns Definition: A noun is a person, place, or thing—tangible or abstract. Tangible refers to things that can be touched or counted, such as table, finger, or store. Tangible: I ordered a hamburger [how many hamburgers did you order?]. Abstract nouns refer to things that cannot be touched or counted, such as anger, courage, or freedom. Abstract: The soldiers fought for freedom [freedom cannot be touched, nor can it be counted].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:40 pm
Aakosir divineseraph Yet words are abstractions- A dog is not the letters D-O-G, nor does it resemble a dog. Only because we, in our minds and abstractions, accept the word as the meaning for the animal does it mean the animal. Therefore the word for a specific or concrete noun is still abstract. Quote: Nouns Definition: A noun is a person, place, or thing—tangible or abstract. Tangible refers to things that can be touched or counted, such as table, finger, or store. Tangible: I ordered a hamburger [how many hamburgers did you order?]. Abstract nouns refer to things that cannot be touched or counted, such as anger, courage, or freedom. Abstract: The soldiers fought for freedom [freedom cannot be touched, nor can it be counted]. We're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking philosophically. Our entire language system is abstraction, using vocal sounds to portray the idea of something. This relates to the original thing about switching the two words soul and spirit. Words are abstract, so it doesn't really matter on a level of understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:22 am
Shad Woest What is the difference between soul and spirit? Aren't they the same? Yes they are...A soul is a soul only as long as its in a body. WHen the soul leaves the body it becomes a spirit. To answer "what a soul is for". Its kinda like I said above. Your soul is like your body, but for the after life. Before that though...its the spark of life, no soul, no life. Thats how it is in most religions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:26 am
There are many other things to live for besides beliefs and religions.
For example, some people live for another person, some people live for sports, the spotlight, revenge, etc.
Take those things away and it's like taking, if they had one, their beliefs or religions away by proving them false or by other means.
Then it's like they don't know what to do anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:36 pm
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Yet words are abstractions- A dog is not the letters D-O-G, nor does it resemble a dog. Only because we, in our minds and abstractions, accept the word as the meaning for the animal does it mean the animal. Therefore the word for a specific or concrete noun is still abstract. Quote: Nouns Definition: A noun is a person, place, or thing—tangible or abstract. Tangible refers to things that can be touched or counted, such as table, finger, or store. Tangible: I ordered a hamburger [how many hamburgers did you order?]. Abstract nouns refer to things that cannot be touched or counted, such as anger, courage, or freedom. Abstract: The soldiers fought for freedom [freedom cannot be touched, nor can it be counted]. We're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking philosophically. Our entire language system is abstraction, using vocal sounds to portray the idea of something. This relates to the original thing about switching the two words soul and spirit. Words are abstract, so it doesn't really matter on a level of understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:47 pm
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Yet words are abstractions- A dog is not the letters D-O-G, nor does it resemble a dog. Only because we, in our minds and abstractions, accept the word as the meaning for the animal does it mean the animal. Therefore the word for a specific or concrete noun is still abstract. Quote: Nouns Definition: A noun is a person, place, or thing—tangible or abstract. Tangible refers to things that can be touched or counted, such as table, finger, or store. Tangible: I ordered a hamburger [how many hamburgers did you order?]. Abstract nouns refer to things that cannot be touched or counted, such as anger, courage, or freedom. Abstract: The soldiers fought for freedom [freedom cannot be touched, nor can it be counted]. We're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking philosophically. Our entire language system is abstraction, using vocal sounds to portray the idea of something. This relates to the original thing about switching the two words soul and spirit. Words are abstract, so it doesn't really matter on a level of understanding. Lao Tzu The Tao that can be followed is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth While naming is the origin of the myriad things. Lao Tzu The Tao is always nameless. And even though a sapling might be small No one can make it be his subject. If rulers could embody this principle The myriad things would follow on their own. Heaven and Earth would be in perfect accord And rain sweet dew. People, unable to deal with It on its own terms Make adjustments; And so you have the beginning of the division into names. Since there are already plenty of names You should know where to stop. Knowing where to stop, you can avoid danger. Chuang Tzu The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him? The Taoists concur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
